[gwnn]

gnasher, on 2011-October-07, 02:07, said:

For this recipient, emoticons aren't at all effective, because apart from the smiling one I have no idea what any of them mean.

FYP

[phil_20686]

On a somewhat related note of non verbal cues: Proof that we hear with our eyes

The Mcgurk Effect

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-06, 21:19, said:

Maybe or maybe not. Recently hrothgar called me "you loathesome diseased cunt", and I do not believe that he would address a stranger, or indeed anyone, that way face-to-face.

You're partially right. I wouldn't address some random stranger in the same manner. (No reason to do so)

However, if I were involved in a face-to-face conversation that was progressing on the same lines, I would have made just the just the same comment. (In fact, I've said a hell of a lot worse)

[gnasher]

hrothgar, on 2011-October-07, 06:10, said:

(In fact, I've said a hell of a lot worse)

If so, you must have an admirably good understanding of English invective.

[hrothgar]

gnasher, on 2011-October-07, 08:01, said:

If so, you must have an admirably good understanding of English invective.

Benefits of a liberal arts education...
(and spending a good chunk of '82 in London)

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-06, 21:22, said:

Gosh, who else remembers point/counterpoint? That was so funny!

And the reason it was so funny is because no one would really respond like that. Yet we see it happen in online discussions all the time.

This past weekend's SNL had a sketch called "The Comments Section", about a fictional talk show where people who write stupid comments below YouTube videos are invited as guests.

http://www.nbc.com/s...lk-Show/1359602

If you google "why are people more rude online", you'll find a number of theories. My guess is that it's a combination of a number of things:

1. Anonymity
2. Lack of visual contact reduces empathy
3. The written medium prompts people to interpret things more literally than they would in conversation. This tends to come up often when people use words like "always", "never", "everyone", and "no one" -- in conversation we generally recognize that these are not usually intended as absolutes, but for some reason people love to find exceptions when they encounter them in online discussions, so they can point out the OP's mistake.
4. Lack of immediacy and context. Online discussions take place over hours or days, and we often lose track of what was said earlier, and just react to the most recent comments. These comments are often not interpreted in the context of the whole conversation, causing confusion.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-October-06, 11:24, said:

Case in point: I pretty much despise Lukewarm ...

that's only because you never finished your dissertation ... PhDs almost universally adore me

[Winstonm]

Annoying posts don't "just happen" - some asshole keeps typing them out and posting them.

[JLOGIC]

grunch: annoying people

[Vampyr]

hrothgar, on 2011-October-07, 13:10, said:

Quote

(In fact, I've said a hell of a lot worse)

gnasher, on 2011-October-07, 08:01, said:

If so, you must have an admirably good understanding of English invective.

Indeed; I have never heard this kind of talk in real life, but I guess I tend to surround myself with reasonably well-brought-up people. Other people, obviously, have a very different lifestyle.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2011-October-07, 14:09, said:

"why are people more rude online"

Car-owners behave the same way when driving. The main reason is relative immunity from physical retaliation. Such behaviour, face-to-face, would result in offenders spending most of their (short) lives in hospital.

[kenrexford]

Oh, the love. So touching.

[y66]

Oh dear. Another setback. And he was making such fine progress.

[1eyedjack]

The main purpose of emoticons is to facilitate the effective delivery of an insult, with all its barbs intentionally armed, but while maintaining the veneer of politeness.

Jane, you ignorant slut

[Foxx]

nige1, on 2011-October-08, 03:02, said:

Car-owners behave the same way when driving. The main reason is relative immunity from physical retaliation.

Apparently they don't have road rage in Scotland. I envy you.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2011-October-08, 03:02, said:

Car-owners behave the same way when driving. The main reason is relative immunity from physical retaliation. Such behaviour, face-to-face, would result in offenders spending most of their (short) lives in hospital.

Foxx, on 2011-October-09, 17:48, said:

Apparently they don't have road rage in Scotland. I envy you.

We do but if you choose your moment and your car is sufficiently old, tank-like, or fast, then you are still relatively safe. And women have become almost as aggressive as men.

[blackshoe]

There are times when I can see the old board game "Car Wars" becoming reality. The premise was armed and armored vehicles — if somebody annoyed you or got in your way, you just blew him up. The game predates the widespread use of the term "road rage" by at least a decade or two.

[JLOGIC]

GTA baby

[kenberg]

Late 1940s or perhaps early 50s
I had a board game called "Taxi, the game with rules made to be broken". It got a lot of use.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2011-October-10, 11:04, said:

Late 1940s or perhaps early 50s
I had a board game called "Taxi, the game with rules made to be broken". It got a lot of use.

Is this not a computer game now?